The New Book On The Second Revolution And What To Make of It

18Jan

A netter commenting on a new book apparently about the Second Liberation of Kenya (defeat of KANU) says in one of the Kenyan fora, “What Raila Odinga provided was leadership not opportunistic posturing as the good daktari would like kenyans to believe. Rainbow leaders had an option of going it alone and facing imminent defeat at the hand of KANU. In 1992, when KIBAKI and MATIBA had similar opportunity of energizing JARAMOGI`S FORD to defeat KANU, they opted to go separate ways and KANU romped home.”

I have not read this book but have read with interest what several individuals who have either read the book or some excepts of it have had to say by way of critiquing the book.

Reading all this, I have made conclusions that essentially confirm what I have all along assumed the book is about and that is, an effort to rewrite history as it relates to what happened in the Second Liberation.

More specifically, it is my proposition that the book is a futile effort to minimize the great contributions made by the likes of Raila in the second liberation while attempting to embellish the contributions of others who made little or no contribution to the liberation, while making sideline casualties of some who fall in between.

I am not even sure it is necessary to read the book to confirm this, going by what comments I am seeing thus far.

The same netter offering the comment above says, “Those who wants to be believed as they rewrite our history must stick to the truth!”

One can understand where he is coming from or what he means but, the truth is, rewriting history is by definition lying about it.

Not that there is anything new or unusual about that; people do it all the time and you really can’t blame them for they know no better or they are driven by even more darker ambitions betrayed only in their writings.

Without exception, every book that has been written to rewrite history is first and foremost the writer’s unashamed effort to either advance a cause or agenda tilted in favor of their individual interests or, if none, its an effort to project their significance above all others in the making of the story above what it was in reality or at least an effort to make themselves appear in the most positive light than others present would agree.

It is marketing 101 and one can’t say people have no shame doing it for it’s now become a norm in the book publishing industry.

There is no doubt when it’s all said and done, the events that have shaped our lives as a nation and are part of our history will be accurately recorded for proper history books, including most recently the Second Liberation, PEV and passage of the new constitution.

That’s not to say it is not commendable for anyone to pen up a book and tell tales of what they know.

If one is to pen a book that can be believed as being an accurate representation of what happened, then all those involved must be able to say they agree with everything you say and, more importantly, that you have not slanted the account to advance an agenda that is selfish in nature and outcome.

On this measure, going by the fact those who were there have already questioned and in several cases pointed out inaccuracies and fallacies, that’s enough to say this is the work of fiction to be accorded corresponding credit.